Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (99403)	2/8/2005 8:07:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793748

No, because the way judges interpret the law does change over time. The judging changing their mind over time doesn't change the fact that if "The law is what judges say it is.", then the judges would be infailable in their interpretation of the law. They can't be wrong about it if they define it, and if they redefine it they still would not be wrong. But "establishment" is an operative word. To define "establishment of religion," you would need to look at the history of establishment of religion in America and Europe prior to the Foundation. It's a simple phrase but jam-packed with controversy for many centuries prior to the Foundation, as well as afterwards. The history of establishment of religions was making formal state religions, supported by, supporting of and/or interconnected with the state to a greater or lesser degree. As for the narrower issue of "scientific creationism" in the class room, I think we should leave it at Message 21029925